"control of certain type weapons / magazines." same thing as anti gun. did I named names? are you guilty? if not, then move on. You screamed and whined like you are guilty.

Yours was a horrible accident but my OP was NOT an accident! Glad they have a gun inside the house or else another funeral for good decent people!

you are avoiding AGAIN . . . . you LIED about making a RIDICULOUS point blank statement that "some here prefer the intruders to get away with their crime, the mother to get rape, father get beaten up, house rob, son getting shot etc." . . . . . for more conflict baiting! My Mother was raped princess . . . I don't play around with BS like your comment. It was a cheap shot to get a rise out of people and not even close to being truthful

accidents do indeed happen when cars are around so you want to regulate cars now?

Cars are already regulated, registered, and controlled. Registered owners are liable for damage caused and must carry liability insurance. Moreover the car license must be renewed yearly. I wish guns were regulated as well.

Really? Never heard anyone calling for banning cars or passing car control laws after thousands died due to car bombings last 5 years or more...

If you get close to a point, I'd love to know what it is.

BTW, are car bombings that big a problem in the USA? I haven't heard of that many.

Thank God it is not a problem

So your previous post was more of the usual stupidity?

or else liberals will call to ban them or pass car control laws banning cars that can load TNT etc...

Wrong, as usual. We would call for a ban on selling TNT to civilians who can't prove a need for the stuff. We've already make companies that sell fertilizer coat the stuff so it can't be mixed with diesel fuel to produce a bomb. That was done in reaction to the Arkansas bombing.

It seems the difference between your kind and liberals is that we can recognize when an object is too dangerous to be allowed into the hands of a careless society, and know enough to take steps to rectify these sorts of things when it is in the best interests of the public.

I don't blame guns either, but I recognize the carnage that they are used for, and recognize that if there were some logical limits put on their ownership, the carnage would reduce. I recognize that ending mass shootings is a laudable goal. I recognize that ending the possibility of a two year old shooting and killing his sister is a good thing. I recognize that there is no loss in keeping a 15 year old from whacking his entire family.

I recognize that while guns aren't necessarily the active ingredient, they are often the catalyst. Since we can't do anything about the active ingredient (the people), the only alternative is to remove the catalyst if we want to put a dent in the carnage.

Ultimately, people who advocate gun control want to see an end to the killing, people who don't would rather see the gun deaths continue.

my "previous post" you were talking about was a question not a statement!